🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12361@pur-ee.UUCP>, hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz) writes:
> I'd just like to clarify that public domain (PD) software DOES carry a
> copyright...

Hank, I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.  It doesn't even take a lawyer
to check this one; a decent dictionary will tell you that "public domain"
means "not subject to copyright or patent".  If a work is in the public
domain, it may be freely appropriated--the act of placing it in the public
domain is equivalent to relinquishing ALL rights in the work.

If you put a notice in a piece of software saying that it is in the public
domain, but accompanying it with a restriction, you have made conflicting
statements.  The best you could hope for if someone disobeyed the restric-
tion you attempt to place on it is a very murky legal hassle.

I suggest that folks who are interested in these issues look at the GNU
material talking about "copyleft"--the explanation of why GNU software is
not PD covers the issues.

There is also a paper by Jordan Breslow - an attorney practicing copyright
and computer law - which came with the news software a while back.  It
does a good job of explaining the distinctions.  Regarding PD, he notes
that "...the phrase `public domain', when used correctly, means the
absence of copyright protection..."

> ...This is exactly how research results published in
> journals are treated:  the text is copyrighted, the authors must be given
> due credit for their work, but everyone is free to build upon that work.

Yes, the text is copyrighted.  It is not in the public domain.  Note that
a copyright does NOT cover information!  It covers the presentation of the
information.  When you say "everyone is free to build upon that work" you
mean that people can use the information--which is true because the copy-
right has nothing to do with it.  If the research produced a patent as
well, others would *not* be [as] free to build upon that work, since they
would be unable to use whatever processes were patented without licensing
them.

> Someone who modifies your PD code shouldn't have any obligation to you other
> than to acknowledge, by appropriate citation, your prior work.

This is reasonable, but the acknowledgement is a matter of courtesy and
honesty.  There is no legal obligation.  Representing someone else's work
as your own would be an entirely different matter, separate from copyright
questions.  What I mean by that is:  If you take a work in the public
domain and represent it as your own, you CAN get into trouble, but the
trouble is NOT within the domain of copyright law.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...Simpler is better.